Forums

long overdue...User Polls Topic

I agree change is needed at high D1 firing/hiring. The worlds aren't quite full enough to say "No D1 job should go unfilled with an applicant!", but I'd like to see a system more based on filling with the best applicant, even if the standards must be lowered.
Here's a really basic chart of standards I'd like to see at D1:
A/A+ baseline prestige: 1 NT miss in 5 years puts you on edge of losing the job. 2 in 8 or so gets you canned. No Elite 8 in 5 years gets you canned.
A-/B+ baseline prestige: 1 complete postseason miss in 5 years puts you on edge. 2 in 10 gets you canned. No Sweet 16 in 6 years gets you canned.

I'd also like to see the amount the coach raised the prestige take effect. If I took a C prestige to an A prestige, I've earned a bit of leeway. But, still make the standards shift slowly up (if you're an A prestige for 8 years, you'd get canned for missing two straight NT's even if you did that work).

I'd also like to see a bigger gap in hiring standards between 'Major' and 'Mid-Major' conferences. Make the door to low D1 wide open, but not the Mountain West, C-USA type jobs.

As stated before, if you get fired from Kentucky, you should still get a mid-major job. I'd make the standard a drop of 1 1/2 prestige letters (A->B-/C+ ish).

Another thing I'd love to see changed is the favorite school metric. Right now it's not really impacting much- I'd rather see two or three schools listed, in a way that is more geographically related. Yes, you have a kid who grew up loving Georgetown in LA, but at least have 1/3rd of the local kids love local schools, and maybe even 5% of them love a lower division school if they're close enough (If you live in the town of a DII school, you may give them a nod of favorite), or 1% in general (call it the 'my dad/cousin/etc. went there factor). Also (and I haven't checked) make sure this lines up with their distance preference. Small changes, but I hate the fact that I *think* most of us just ignore that entire concept of favorite school.

Thanks Nacho for the poll, hopefully this will get some eyes and conversation on the big issues!

I know everybody loves the idea of being able to dictate man-to-man matchups, but I think that they way things are structured right now that could pose some problems. I just had a PG leave early from my UCLA team, 99 ATH/100 SPD/100 DEF. He could shut down anyone he matches up against and I could put him on anyone's best scorer. The problem is two-fold; first, he's 5'10", so the thought he could shut down an elite 6'7"+ SF/PF/C in the post is absurd. The second problem is a much bigger, in that it puts too much power back on the defense. The offensive coach won't have the option to address a more favorable matchup during the game, since the programming won't allow it. I don't particularly want to return to the HD where 55-50 games were high scoring.

Also, I'll add the below suggestions regarding EEs, I've sent them in and gotten the standard CS response, but perhaps if more people see them and like them, they may get more traction:

Two suggestions to improve the early entry process at DI:

Currently it seems like evals for all of the top 100-120 recruits say that they will likely leave early for the NBA. I suggest reducing that to 25-35 (skewed towards 4-5 stars, but some 1-3 stars as well), but actually make it mean something. The kids who have that message will leave early, current logic can be used (or tweaked and improved) to determine if they leave after their FR, SO or JR seasons, but they will never see their SR season.

Also, I think there should be an extra email that comes at rollover, with the draft email, where your assistant coach can tell you who had a great summer and who might be tempted by the NBA if they have a good season. That way EEs can be better predicted (if they weren't on the email, they won't go) and it will allow coaches to mitigate their impact by adjusting recruitng targets.

Great point acn, I didn't think about that (I mean, I wanted the matchups back in the day when position mattered!)

Maybe to some degree position needs to be brought back in if the matchups would happen... but of course now that's another can of worms. It's not as simple as many of us thought, but my frusteration is on no planet would I let the offensive coach tell me who was going to guard who.

Posted by asher413 on 4/27/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):Great point acn, I didn't think about that (I mean, I wanted the matchups back in the day when position mattered!)

Maybe to some degree position needs to be brought back in if the matchups would happen... but of course now that's another can of worms. It's not as simple as many of us thought, but my frusteration is on no planet would I let the offensive coach tell me who was going to guard who.

good convo - the obvious problem is obvious - IRL coaches can move players around on both ends to try to create mis-matches. Short of real - time game adjustments which I can't see how it could be implemented how else do you make some kind of matchup tool that works for both sides?

Well, programming could allow the flow of the game to dictate the distribution more effectively, rather than it being so coach-centered right now to where you're stuck with whatever choices each side has made for the full game. Because you all are right, in the real world, there would be countermoves and if you tell a guy to look for his offense but he's getting double teamed on the catch, then that would be addressed by the second TV timeout. (Whether a team could effectively do so is what makes it a good or bad strategy).

As far as the 5-10 vs. 6-7 thing, if that would really work well enough as to be absurd, well then maybe that's an issue that needs to be addressed in the sim to make height mean more. It's not a reason to dismiss gameplay suggestions, IMO, but a suggestion itself to improve a different area of the game.

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/27/2014 3:51:00 PM (view original):Well, programming could allow the flow of the game to dictate the distribution more effectively, rather than it being so coach-centered right now to where you're stuck with whatever choices each side has made for the full game. Because you all are right, in the real world, there would be countermoves and if you tell a guy to look for his offense but he's getting double teamed on the catch, then that would be addressed by the second TV timeout. (Whether a team could effectively do so is what makes it a good or bad strategy).

As far as the 5-10 vs. 6-7 thing, if that would really work well enough as to be absurd, well then maybe that's an issue that needs to be addressed in the sim to make height mean more. It's not a reason to dismiss gameplay suggestions, IMO, but a suggestion itself to improve a different area of the game.

it does sorta work like that now, because (I think) height is generated after abilities and based in part upon them (and then listed position I think). Its not really realistic at all. I will say that the small nod to realism is that those short guys won't have any rebounding so the taller guy should get more def boards (although based on another recent thread people don't seem to be certain how much individual matchups play a role...maybe we can get a dev chat sometime now that seble is allowed to remember we exist for a couple weeks.)

**this bit below I originally had written in another post, but it seemed out of place. its truncated and not 100% in context, but its long and I don't have time to write a short post.

assume no negative intonation please.

the overall merits of that [agitating for change was the topic] are a discussion where you would find nearly 100% agreement on the basic tenet that in many, many ways HD does not accurately simulate or even represent real life basketball. Where the major split of opinions would begin is on what do to about it and how -

much of that comes from years of experience playing the game through 2 admins, the original creator who had intimate knowledge of every aspect and nuance but was very unresponsive and absolutely immune to feedback, and the current admin who, if I am correct, the general consensus is tries hard, wants it to be as great as we want it to be, does not have the level of knowledge of how the game ticks as the creator did, and is too often busy with other Fox tasks to be able to devote the time necessary to actually accomplish what he and we'd all like to see. One reason many users don't take to the streets with pitchforks and lanterns to demand changes is because a lot have been there and done that and come to grips with the reality that we live in. A not insignificant but not intended to be a dig either issue is that in past updates seble (the current admin) has pushed things too far in one direction or another on a few occasions, and while he is usually quick to try to respond and integrate fixes dialing in a game like HD while basically paying Fox for the privilege of beta testing isn't really great either...

I have noticed that as well about how the relationship between height and player attributes. But like the previous poster brought out, there still seem to be some issues.

I understand all those issues, but what I don't understand is why the players themselves have such a problem with calling a spade a spade. Maybe they see it as telling them the baby's ugly, but it's not their baby. I could see seble having that view, but I really don't think that a programmer/designer would or should, because they can incorporate good ideas into an improved version of the baby (to continue a metaphor that's obviously becoming labored haha).

I further don't understand why, from very early on, way before battle lines were drawn, that these kinds of comments and suggestion were met with hostility. Maybe my mind works differently than others -- I'm always looking at how something can be made better, what I can do to help make it so, and what opportunities exist that maybe no one else is even seeing. If someone else had good ideas (and some here do, and some have been posted, and I've expressed my approval of those I like), no matter where I am on the stakeholder map, I want to hear them. if I'm seble, then this is gold -- I can make changes that make the game better, bring in more people, make the company more money, which raises my stock and profile in the organization. If I'm a player, then other people are improving my experience for me through no effort of my own. If I'm Fox, the benefit is obvious. Everyone wins from exchange and vetting of ideas -- and maybe we're finally getting close to getting there in some corners of the board, while in other instances entire threads are being devoted to my banishment, which is completely unhelpful regardless of result.

I have no problem with a 6'0 PG player shutting down a 6'6 SF, nor do I have huge deal with giving the defense a little bit more teeth. If anything it will force teams to focus more on having balance, instead overall awesome ATH and DEF then just one or two good scorers.